I would like some help understanding the CSound API for C++, i can't seem to compile it on Visual Studio 2008/9, a couple of odd problems stdint.h doesn't exist and after i add it, two redefinition errors.
Anyone used CSound before? (I'm writting a synth engine btw)
Yeah great, to solve the first problem i included stdint in the local directory but that caused the second errors, which is a clash betwenn CSounds sysdef file and a windows file both defining two types of long int as different things.
I would like insight into that problem but i was also just looking to see if anyone else had used CSound or it's API before and what they did/how they felt about it etc..
>>10
I find bool really convenient, because you can fit it in just about any code you write. It's a minimum-effort way to remind MSVC people of the inferiority of their compiler.
>>12
Of course not, but it's an extra step they'll have to do.
If I were to put effort into it, I'd at least put some complex arithmetic in there, but complex numbers aren't as universally useful.
>>11
Besides bool, I use other C99 features like variable length arrays, variable declarations in for statements, snprintf, stdint, inline functions, designated initializers, and flexible struct sizes.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-27 3:21
>>10
C99 is the ANSI standard. It has been for over a decade.
>>9
ICC only compiles code for shitty x86/x86_64/IA-64.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-27 3:29
>>15
Then use RVCT for shitty ARM, [Insert vendor compiler] for [Insert vendor architecture], etc. It's all compliant anyway, right?
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-27 8:20
>>15
And what architecture do you use? "shitty" x86_64 happens to have the fastest implementations of any architecture besides POWER7, and x86_64 runs many different operating systems compared to POWER.
>>17
It may be fast but it's still shitty. It's an ancient arch and currently has layer upon layer of backwards compatibility features that result dirty hacks. There is also the matter of power usage.
>>15
Yes, pedant, that's true. But you know exactly what I meant.
>>15-16,20
I can't believe you twats are still bickering about chips.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-27 10:13
>>20
The instruction decoder of a modern x86-64 CPU is very small relative to the rest of the CPU. All instructions get converted into RISC-like micro-operations internally (this has been true since the Pentium Pro/P6). Ancient and complex instructions are implemented in microcode. The cost of this backwards compatibility is minimal.
x86-64 has a common floating point instruction set (SSE2) as well.
SPARC, MIPS, ARM, and IA64 simply don't come close. (ARM doesn't even have a 64-bit mode yet!) The only superior chip is POWER7, and I'm certain you don't use it.
ARM doesn't even have a 64-bit mode yet!
and yet an ARM processor is a lot faster at 64-bit integer operations than an x86-64 processor using the same amount of power.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-27 10:34
>>30
Thank you for this information. ???? ???????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????!